Weighing privacy and the public's right to know

Sunday

Aug 24, 2008 at 2:15 AM

Newspapers are, among other things, designed to inform and entertain. But, they are also supposed to serve as watchdogs for the community, uncovering and exposing corruption and malfeasance, especially when it involves protecting individuals against threats to their lives or liberties.

Newspapers are, among other things, designed to inform and entertain. But, they are also supposed to serve as watchdogs for the community, uncovering and exposing corruption and malfeasance, especially when it involves protecting individuals against threats to their lives or liberties.

That mission can sometimes become contradictory, sparking intense discussions among readers and journalists. How much information does the public have a right to know? When are the rights of the community paramount to the rights of an individual? Has personal privacy become secondary to the safety of society as a whole?

Nowhere does that question come into starker relief than with data generated by the Massachusetts Sex Offender Registry. This information, provided to media by local police departments, includes the names, photographs, and addresses of Level 3 sex offenders, as well as the offenders' places of employment. This information is shared with the public, in theory, to make them aware of the person and allow them to take any necessary precautions.

One reader recently wrote to complain about the Cape Cod Times' inclusion of such information in its pages. The reader said that we, as a nation, have dismissed the notion that punishment can ever truly end for sex abusers.

"They serve their time, they get out of jail, and then they are punished over and over, every time they change addresses, and evidently every time they get or lose a job," the reader noted. "Thieves, arsonists and murderers are permitted to reclaim their privacy and live in obscurity once released from prison, but no such relief is granted those who commit sex crimes."

The reader quickly noted that this should not be misconstrued as a defense of molesters. Rather that society, and the Cape Cod Times, should decide whether it is fair to continue to publicize these individuals.

Editor-in-Chief Paul Pronovost said the publication of sex offender information has generated discussion in the newsroom, with compelling arguments being made on both sides.

"But it comes down to this: By law, the police must maintain an accurate home and work address for Level 3 sex offenders and share that information with the public," Pronovost said. "We believe the newspaper has a responsibility to publish such information because Level 3 sex offenders are considered the most dangerous and most likely to re-offend and therefore (it is) an important public safety issue."

He went on to say that the publication of such information is a part of the Times' obligation "to share with the public criminal and court activity so the public may make independent assessments of the safety of their community. Of course, we must be sensitive to protect individual rights and the right to due process, which is why we carefully weigh the importance of what we publish."

When I was still an editor, the topic of the sex offender registry provoked an animated discussion between myself and another editor. We went back and forth on the issue for more than an hour. At issue that particular time was a young man who was on the registry and who had moved to a group home in a local town and was walking to his place of employment, which was located in the same town.

Although there were reasonable voices both for and against his presence, the local response occasionally had all the earmarks of a modern-day Salem witch hunt. Ultimately, we ran the stories because there was unquestionable news value: neighbors were upset and public hearings were being held. Not surprisingly, the entire list of local registered sex offenders was included as a sidebar at one point.

I made the argument then, as I do now, that the registry system is imperfect for all the reasons that the reader noted. Why, for example, is it more important to know that a sex offender lives next door than a murderer? At the same time, I feel people have a right to know if someone who could conceivably put them or their families at risk is living nearby. This does not mean people have the right to persecute the person, only that they should be aware that extra caution may be warranted.

By and large, the registry restricts itself to providing information about Level 3 offenders, who, as Pronovost points out, are the most likely to re-offend. But even in this regard, the logic of the registry is flawed. The very existence of the registry suggests that these people still represent a potential danger to society. If this is the case, should not the laws be re-written so that they cannot rejoin society until they are no longer deemed a threat?

Further, there have been, and will continue to be, cases where someone has been designated a Level 3 offender who may not deserve that particular classification. Likewise, there are people who will misuse that information in an effort to drive offenders out of their communities.

In the end, however, it is the law, rather than the newspaper, which must be changed if there is a desire to keep such information private. Until such time, I believe, the paper has not only a right, but a responsibility to grant the public the right to know.

Scott Dalton is the Times' newsroom ombudsman. E-mail him at timesombudsman@yahoo.com, or write him, care of the Cape Cod Times, 319 Main St., Hyannis, MA 02601.

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.